28-135mm

Hey guys I'm looking to replace the 18-55 EF-S kit lens that came with my XT with something a little better. I'm looking at the 28-135mm IS, as I hear it's a great "walking around" lens. I would love to hear your take on it.

http://www.adorama.com​/CA28135ISUR.html

Note that I will be using the XT but I want to take it to my next camera too ( maybe in the next year.... or whenever I can pay for a full frame ).

Thanks,
Phil

Had one for about 1 year. I actually quite liked it and was able to get great images out of it. My ONLY problem was 28mm wasn't wide enough for me, that was the only reason I parted with it. They can frequently be found in the classifieds, sometimes unused because they often come as a kit lens with a variety of bodies.

Lots of good info here:
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=752791

Lots of sample pics here:
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=188563

Are you ok with giving up the 18-27mm range?

ythe1300 wrote in post #11246579
Hey guys I'm looking to replace the 18-55 EF-S kit lens that came with my XT with something a little better. I'm looking at the 28-135mm IS, as I hear it's a great "walking around" lens. I would love to hear your take on it.

http://www.adorama.com​/CA28135ISUR.html

Note that I will be using the XT but I want to take it to my next camera too ( maybe in the next year.... or whenever I can pay for a full frame ).

Thanks,
Phil

I liked mine a lot. Really an under-appreciated lens.

I would say to get one on the boards here or Craigslist. They've been bundled with several cameras lately and you can get one NIB for a song.

-F

I love mine and am always going back and fourth to sell it or not. I dont use it so thats why i would but its sharp. I have the hood and a filter for it.

the only down side is the walk.

sigma pi wrote in post #11246674
I love mine and am always going back and fourth to sell it or not. I dont use it so thats why i would but its sharp. I have the hood and a filter for it.

the only down side is the walk.

to answer a question that this response might lead to, by "walk" i believe sigma pi is referring to "lens creep". this lens tends to be very loose and as it hangs off of your camera, the front element will pull out slowly to its maximum focal length. so if you set it do 28mm, and then let your camera hang on your neck, if the lens is pointing downward it will slowly creep out toward the 135mm mark.

its not a very big deal for most people, but if you are the type of photographer that likes to shoot at specific focal lengths it could get annoying always having to check it.

aaron.dunlap wrote in post #11246778
to answer a question that this response might lead to, by "walk" i believe sigma pi is referring to "lens creep". this lens tends to be very loose and as it hangs off of your camera, the front element will pull out slowly to its maximum focal length. so if you set it do 28mm, and then let your camera hang on your neck, if the lens is pointing downward it will slowly creep out toward the 135mm mark.

its not a very big deal for most people, but if you are the type of photographer that likes to shoot at specific focal lengths it could get annoying always having to check it.

Thanks for explaining

it is annoying but not a deal breaker.

I had one of these for a little while..befor i dropped it n broke it cool walk around lens i fort...not amazin, but gud fun

It's not brilliant at anything, but neither is it bad at anything. It's not that inspiring but I just find it a trusty lens. Well made, fast, quiet and never fails on me.

It's also really good for video.

$200 in our classifieds area.

Hi,

I've had two 28-135. I let the first one go when I upgraded to 24-70/2.8L, but then ended up buying another as a backup.

I like the focal length range a lot, on full frame or crop sensor cams, but I also have a 12-24/4 Tokina for use on my crop sensor cameras and 24mm, 20mm lenses for use on full frame. So I don't feel the lack of wide angle with it.

The 28-135 has a lot going for it, especially considering large numbers of them have been sold in kit and it's pretty easy to find a good, lightly used copy for around $250. It normally sells for over $400, if bought new (Canon's MSRP is $480).

USM gives you fairly fast, quiet focusing, as well as Full Time Manual (with non-USM lenses you need to turn off AF at the switch before manually overriding AF, or you will break the focus system.. with USM like the 28-135 you can simply override AF manually any time you like and don't need to worry about turing off the switch).

It's pretty close focusing, too... I think to about 20 inches (closer is possible with macro extension tubes behind it). And it's got decent Image Stabilization, useful out at the 135mm end of things in particular, although it's one of the simpler versions of IS that's good for probably two stops assistance and you are supposed to turn it off manually when using the lens locked down on a tripod. Build quality is decent, typical Canon "mid-grade" (similar to other USM lenses, such as 50/1.4, 85/1.8, 28/1.8 primes that I use personally). It's not an "L" build, has more plastic than that. But not nearly as plasticky as the entry-level lenses (18-55, 50/1.8, 55-250, etc.)

I highly recommend getting the accessory lens hood for it (one was included with the used lens I bought, as well as a B+W MRC UV filter that probably sells for $60-70). The Canon hood will cost about $25-30. You might find cloned third party hoods on certain auction sites for less. The lens uses 72mm filters. (Note: IMO, it's a waste of money possible risk to image quality to put a "protection" filter on any lens 24/7/365. I use 'em, but only when really needed, say in a sand storm.)

Yes, most copies of the 28-135 show that pesky "zoom creep". It's a small nuisance, IMO. And as an f3.5 to f5.6 variable aperture zoom lens, it's not particularly fast. Decent background blur (bokeh) is possible, just not as much or as smooth as possible as with larger aperture and much more expensive lenses that have more and/or specially shaped aperture blades (28-135 - 6-blade, standard; 24-70/2.8L - 8-blade, curved; 24-105/4 IS - 8-blade, curved... more blades and particularly curved ones give a more perfectly round aperture, which makes for smooter background blur.)

Ultimately, image quality is the most important consideration with any lens. For most typical purposes, moderate size enlargements, I have to say the 28-135 works quite well. I cannot really tell much difference between it's images and those made by 24-70, unless a particularly large aperture were used with the L lens. I actually think the 28-135 exhibits less optical vignetting than the 24-105, at some focal lengths.

It's an EF lens that's usable on both full frame and crop sensor cameras (unlike EF-S which are only usable on 1.6X cameras). On a crop sensor camera and in combination with an UWA lens such as the Tokina 12-24 I use personally, the 28-135 gives you a nice, solid, two lens kit that actually covers a wider range of focal lengths than most 35mm film shooters ever owned in their lifetime. (Nearly all had a 50mm that came with their SLR, a lot would add a 70-210 or similar, some would also get a 28mm as a wide lens... While two lenses covering 12mm to 135mm used on 1.6X camera equate to "19mm to 216mm" range.)

Finally, and some budget-conscious pros use the 28-135. For example, Joe Farace at Shutterbug Magazine is a big fan of the lens. You'll often see his Canon camera tests, studio and location work using this lens. He's said he thinks it silly to spend $1000 plus for a "pro" lens when there is a far less expensive lens such as this available that's so darned good. Obviously I don't completely agree, since I use 24-70/2.8 primarily and keep the 28-135 as a backup or a lens to put on a spare camera and hand to an assistant to use.

I actually think your 18-55 mm lens is much better than the good old 28-135 mm.

@ bluefox9er
What would you suggest for a next lens for me then, seeing as I have right now

18-55mm non IS EF-S
50MM f1.8
75-300mm mark3 4-5.6 ( I know, I know but sometimes I need the zoom.)

_______________

@ merlin2375
thanks for the links.

I am always looking for more range, but I'm also going to be getting a short focal length for my next lens. So I think I will be alright.

_______________

@ amfoto1

Thanks for the write up a lot of good info in there.

_______________

@ everyone else thank you for the information about the creep, I don't think it will bother me but it's good to know.

SmuckerS2 I will check out the classified section.


Thank you all,
Phil

bluefox9er wrote in post #11247137
I actually think your 18-55 mm lens is much better than the good old 28-135 mm.

the 18-55IS is definitely sharper
see www.photozone.de
or
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=1

I don't have the IS 18-55 I have the regular. Which according to that chart is not quite as sharp as the 28-135.

Also thanks for the great resource.